The Fate of Infants and Unborn Children Who Die - Part 6 > > < < Well, that explains it. Home

We're Bad, and that's Good

Let's not get our hamartiology from Serenity.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2006 by Sam Yeiter
Categories: Popular Culture  

I recently watched Joss Whedon’s (soon to be cult classic) Serenity.  I suggest you run out right now and rent this movie.  I suggest this for two reasons: First, it’s a fun, provocative movie (though disturbing at times – this is not a good flick for kids).  Second, I’m going to ruin vast parts of it for you if you read any further than this summary.  Aside from just being a rather interesting movie, it takes on the topic of sin and handles it in an interesting way.  So, watch the movie and then come back to read and interact with this post…

Our hero, Malcomb Reynolds (shortened to Mal by his friends – think malcontent, malevolent, malpractice…), is a wandering captain/mercenary/criminal harkening back to Han Solo.  He takes River, a Reader (psychic etc) and genetically manufactured killing machine, into his custody.  At this point he does not realize how badly she is wanted by the Alliance for her abilities.  Learning of her sordid past, he protects her in an attempt to assuage his guilt over having killed a man.  This care intensifies over time after his meeting with the Shepherd who urges him to believe in something.  By the way, this Pastoral figure happens to live in Haven (just one letter off…).  Mal, having left the safe Haven has a run-in with the Operative, an assassin who makes no bones about using evil to accomplish good.  When he escapes the assassin, he returns to Haven only to find it has come under a brutal assault by the Alliance.  As the Shepherd is dying he has this exchange with Mal:

Shepherd – (nodding toward a burning Alliance ship) I shot him down.  I killed the ship that killed us…not very Christian of me.

Mal – You did what was right.

Thus, the one seemingly holy man in the whole film ends his life with an act of what he considers sin.  After a bit more of the death scene, the Shepherd grabs Mal with what little strength he has and utters his last words, “I don’t care what you believe.  Just believe it.”  These words will drive Mal on to the very end of his journey.

 

In a quest to understand their enemy and find a way to defeat him, they strap the dead bodies of their friends to the exterior of their ship and make their way to Miranda, a planet from which no one has heard anything for years.  It is assumed that the terraforming to make it inhabitable didn’t take.  It is orbited by ships full of Reavers, cannibalistic humanoid monsters that wreck havoc on those living on the nearby planets.  The need for transforming their ship into an abomination (their word, not mine), is to fit in with the Reavers, so they will let them through.  I can hear it now…“All the other kids are putting dead bodies on their ships….”  What they find on the planet is millions of dead people all in poses of normal life.  The whole planet died from some mysterious cause.  A beacon leads them to a holograph describing the end of life there.  The Alliance, of whom the assassin is an agent, introduced a chemical (Pax) into the air meant to sedate the population so as to eliminate crime and violence.  The problem was, it made them so sedate that they gave up eating and drinking and died where they sat.  Or at least this was the fate of the lucky 90% of the planet.  The other 10% were driven mad by it and became the Reavers, dismembering and eating their fellow man.  How’s that for Utopia?

 

In the end, Mal cleverly brings together the Reavers and the army of the Alliance.  As the evil and the really evil (who are pursuing said utopia) fight it out, Mal leaves his friends and heads off to the typical inner workings of a technological hideout to vanquish evil by disseminating the hidden knowledge to the masses.  There he has a confrontation with the assassin who asks him if he believes he is supposed to release that information.  “I do,” he says.  Next question, is he willing to die for that belief?  “I am,” comes the response.  (Perhaps we should write that, “I Am.”)  With this conviction developed, our hero has arrived on his spiritual journey.  The content of his belief is immaterial.  All that matters is the fact that he’s finally believing in something, namely that we’re bad and that’s good.  In the midst of a ferocious struggle, the operative asks him, “Do you know what your sin is, Mal?”  Mal answers, “Hell*, I’m a fan of all seven.  But right now I’m gonna go with wrath.” When he seems beaten, he suddenly subdues the machiavellian assassin and forces him to watch the holograph’s explanation of the destruction of the silent planet.  As he binds him he says, “I’m not going to kill you.  Hell, I’m gonna grant you your greatest wish.  I’m gonna show you a world without sin.”  When he returns to his friends they ask if he’s accomplished his goal.  Beaten and battered he utters, “It’s done.”

 

The message is this: We are meant to be corrupt.  It is normal, and we might just as well embrace it.  To attempt to achieve holiness is senseless and the concept of a millennial kingdom is impossible, and if attempted, would explain the rebellion at its end by those driven mad.  Though Joss totally blows it on the issue of corruption being preferable to wholeness and holiness, he does get one major thing right with the Reavers.  Holiness cannot be imposed externally and be expected to bring true inner peace.  An exclusively external holiness that is mandated by law and is enforced by penalty will allow evil to fester in the heart and explode in madness or in hypocrisy.  On a small scale, perhaps we saw this with the Jewish leadership of Jesus’ day.  Thank God this is not our final state.  God will work true serenity in us through the Holy Spirit via the imputation of his law (which I would suggest is his character) in our hearts.  Jeremiah describes this to some degree in Jeremiah 31:31-34.  My thanks go out to Joss for giving us an enjoyable and provocative film, but “thanks be to God for his indescribable gift,” who has proven Joss dead wrong.

 



* I’m including the profanity here because it seems not to be gratuitous, but is playing on the sin/holy, sinner/saint, Heaven/Hell tension and confusion of the movie.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:40 AM

Brian wrote: Don't believe it

I see your holiness motif, but I find the "believe anything" motif more disturbing. The Shepherd told Mal he had to find something to believe in order to stand against the operative because the operative believed something absolutely. In an earlier scene he even asked, "When I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?"

Mal incapacitated the operative and forced him to see his "world without sin," and we see that his unquestioning belief in the Alliance was eliminated by involuntary exposure to the truth.

Finally, once Mal believes something enough to die for it, we see that he also wins the heart of Inara.

At first blush, there is a fundamental truth: Belief, even belief in a lie, powerfully motivates people. The more fervent their belief, the more powerful their influence. And people respond to the charismatic belief of others. At second blush, it lacks the Fundamental truth that belief in God is the only true belief.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:29 PM

Brian wrote: We are able to be bad and that's necessary

I don't think that Whedon is wrong.

Our malcontent hero likes to raise a ruckus. He also protects his crew with a vengeance. He has morals, and he demonstrates the chaotic good that comes from imperfect men striving to do what is right.

The horror of the Reavers is the result of trying to remove man's will toward evil. The result was that men either lost the will to live and they died, or they didn't die, but had no will toward good.

Whedon's assertion seems to be that we have to be able to be bad in order for us to be able to be good. Otherwise we are not able to make a moral choice at all.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:13 AM

Sam wrote: Let's make God bad, too...
Ok, I've let this sit here unanswered long enough...
 
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that God is incapable of sin.  Does this then mean that God is unable to do good? 
 
What do you think, Whedonite?

Thursday, March 30, 2006 10:04 AM

Brian wrote: Sam, Sam, Sam

You are definitely leaping beyond what either I or Whedon asserted. "We" in my comment does not include God. Just to avoid further confusion: Whedon asserts that we humans have to be able to do bad in order to be able to do good. The scope of Whedon's theme is just us humans--he doesn't even include aliens. His assertions do not apply to God. The truth that God is incapable of sin does not have direct bearing on whether or not our ability to choose between good and bad is a necessary ability.

Thursday, March 30, 2006 1:29 PM

Jason wrote: A fresh response

Since I am slow in reading, I have only just now read Sam's original and blasphemous post on Serenity, a film which I found simultaneously enjoyable and disturbing. The film is enjoyable to me because it is a good story (as stories go it has good elements) and it demonstrates the potential for the human spirit to fight for what is good and right and true. I think it's interesting to pick a thread and follow it through the film as Sam has done, but there are other threads to choose from besides attitudes toward sin.

What about the thread of "truth"? The story of this film is very much about exposing truth and falsehood. Although often couched in terms of relativism, there is a concept of absolute truth in this film. That truth is understood in chiefly clinical terms, however, with multiple perspectives. Still, I want to see truth as something more than clinical. The idea that Mal and his crew are outlaws because they were fighting on the wrong side of the war (prior to the movie), that they have uncovered a revelation of what really took place and that it indicts the current government, all give the sense that Mal and his crew are fighting to make the truth known. They don't have any delusions of utopia, but they do have an inner drive to live in the light of the truth--even if that truth is a bit murky. Whedon's catch-phrase "can't stop the signal" captures his idea that the truth is out there and it will be made known. From a theological-semantic standpoint this all seems good, but Whedon also allows his universe to operate without an assumption of God, let alone Christ. Unfortunately, for those of us who assert that Christ is the truth we are likely to be disappointed by Whedon's story if we are looking for something that approximates reality. Like the Matrix, it comes close to reality--even metaphorically--but misses some key elements.

One of Mal's crew (the tough guy whose name I forget) says at one point in the movie, "Let's be bad guys." Taken out of context that sounds not so good. It sounds like an endorsement for evil. But in context, what he is saying is that when you are hunted as a criminal because your government opposes you, you are a "bad guy" no matter what you stand for. In that moment he embraces opposition to evil (close, I would suggest, to the biblical admonition to "hate sin" or "hate what is evil and cling to what is good") rather than embracing evil, per se. He is allowing himself to be defined by the authority structure (evil utopian government) over him, and saying that he will not compromise in order to "fall in line". I do agree with Sam that these characters "embrace" that identity rather than trying to defend themselves as the "real good guys" against the wolves in sheep's clothing (the government). They choose to allow their actions to speak for them, but they don't believe in a God who is a righteous judge--either to bring forth their righteousness on the Day of Judgment or to convict them of their own actual sins. They are like sheep without a shepherd (even when the character of Shepherd was alive), but they're struggling to do what is right based on assumptions about reality that do not include the God of the Bible.

Login to add comments